Search Tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors like returning full task data and count_only behavior, but fails to mention pagination details, max_results defaults, or mutual exclusivity of user filters, which are relevant for invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear primary action and supporting details. It uses bullet-like emphasis for key behaviors, but some statements are redundant with the schema (e.g., required fields, completion status options), which could be trimmed without losing value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential invocation aspects: required parameters, filters, return behavior, and count_only. It omits pagination and max_results defaults, but these are documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it repeats completion_status enums and count_only behavior, and only slightly clarifies user_name_filter over user_filter. The schema itself already explains case-insensitivity and mutual exclusivity, so the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Search for tasks within a date range' and enumerates supported filters (date, user, contact, completion status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'no need to call get_task afterward', which sets it apart from the related get_task tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this tool to find tasks by...') and offers an explicit alternative exclusion: 'no need to call get_task afterward'. It also gives guidance on count_only for large datasets, but lacks comprehensive when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the get_task comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.